Does That Include Me?

NOTE: The title of this post is also a link to the article referenced within the post.

Good investigators are great leaders. They have to be. I've just only begun to realize how true that is. Attached to this post is a link to an article I recently read in a magazine I subscribe to. The article, entitled, "How To Build Great Leaders," discussed the value of developmental assignments as one of the tools that are used by organizations to build great leaders. My organization is on the list of the top 25 cited in the article. I have a colleague who has gone to Harvard Business School as a developmental assignment. I have several other colleagues who have been assigned overseas for three years for leadership development.

As I read through the article, I began to wonder why I was not getting some of these opportunities. And then I began to think about what I am doing for the organization now, and how I got there. But first, allow me to back up.

According to the article, developmental assignments are costly in that you leave a role in which you are being productive (read as adding value to the organization) and are assigned a role in which you are not necessarily being productive (read as learning or developing). In the latter case, a return on investment for the developmental assignment may not be realized for years after the assignment. Many times, these developmental assignments are grueling in terms of demand on time and other personal resources, because you have to really push the learning curve to keep up.

As stated above, I began to wonder why I was not getting some of these opportunities, but stopped short when I thought about what it was I was I am doing for my organization now and how I got here. Prior to my former role, I had been given a challenging leadership position (formal) at which I had been successful. I had asked specifically about further developing my leadership skills and was placed in an individual contributor role, the purpose of which was to focus on improvement of the process I would be supporting. I was in this role only six months before it became apparent that there were going to be numerous manufacturing deviations for some time to come. Although I had a team of peers I worked with, the responsibility of investigating and resolving these deviations fell to me.

In January of 2007, the organization implemented a new database for investigating deviations and storing all the details of each investigation. This system has queries that will enable anyone to identify how many investigations they have actually done. From 01 JAN 2007 to 01 MAR 2009, slightly over two years, I had performed 115 investigations requiring full Root Cause Analysis and supported several others. It was challenging and difficult. I often viewed myself as not much more than a technical writer. My focus got more narrow as time went on, such that all I was doing was these investigations. Long hours were put in to manage a nearly unbearable workload.

I was informed in NOV 2008, that I would soon have a new role and in MAR 2009, took the role I now have as a member of a team of individuals specifically tasked to investigate certain types of deviations called trends. We use Six Sigma tools (I'm a Green Belt) and other investigative techniques and impact is sometimes beyond the site I support. We are an eclectic bunch and have learned to work well together. We are just now preparing a year end presentation of our results for senior stakeholders.

How, you ask, does this relate to the article cited above? First of all, allow me to explain that there are formal leaders and there are informal leaders. Formal leaders have titles stating them as such. Informal leaders do not. Not everyone can be a Formal Leader. There is just not enough opportunities to go around. In any organization. Some people are Formal Leaders due to skill, talent, nepotism, favoritism, timing or any combination of these. Some are controllable, some are not.

On the other hand, everyone can be an informal leader. Allow me to repeat that one more time: EVERYONE CAN BE AN INFORMAL LEADER. Given this fact, then the equation for leadership changes a bit. I left a role as a Formal Leader to work for a time as an individual contributor. I was not able to utilize my skill set in the manner described in my job description, nor to my own personal expectation. I felt that I had left a role where I was productive. In my new role, I was productive, but not in a way I felt good about at the time.

After three years, and a lot of frustration, I was assigned my current role, also as an individual contributor. Admittedly, I was somewhat frustrated coming into this role, but then the clouds parted and angels began to sing. The work I had done over the previous three years, although unexpectedly, had helped me develop a skill set highly valued by the organization. My networking, investigative, communication and yes, leadership skills, had all improved significantly. This was not overt. I did not realize this until things started developing as I settled into this new role.

This was a significant learning for me. So when you hear about the fancy assignments overseas or at Harvard or MIT or whatever, perhaps you can step back and take a look at what you are doing right now and ask: Is what I am doing a developmental assignment in disguise? What can I learn from this role, frustrating as it may be, that will position me to be a better leader, formal or informal, in the future.

I believe that when things are painful, we are either growing, or missing a significant opportunity to grow. When things are easy, we are not challenged and when we are not challenged, we do not learn. If we don't learn, we may be cutting ourselves short on future opportunities. If you accept this as fact, then after you read the article above on organizations that build great leaders, and then ask yourself, "Does that include me?" The only answer is...

...YES!!!